Talk:Spider-Man/Kingpin: To the Death Vol 1 1
What does the indica say?J'onn J'onzz (talk) 16:31, March 12, 2019 (UTC) :: The Indicia for this comic simply says "Kingpin" with no volume or issue number. However, because this is a graphic novel it has an ISBN number, 978-0785106531. According to the ISBN the book is registered as "Spider-Man Kingpin: To the Death". I would argue that the page name should be changed to reflect the ISBN registry because: ::: 1) The indicia on the actual book doesn't follow the standard for a comic book indicia (it just says "Kingpin" with no volume or issue number) ::: 2) The ISBN registry lists it as "Spider-Man Kingpin: To the Death" ::: 3) The 2003 series indicia identifies that series as Kingpin Vol 1. ::: 4) Doing a Google search, retailers that have a listing for this graphic novel use the ISBN registry for the title and not the indicia. ::: 5) Further Google searches show that this series is generally referred to by the cover title. :: Other notes: A search in the comics section of Marvel.com does not have an entry for this title (they list every other Kingpin title but this one). Marvel.com's listings do not list by volume but by year of publication. :: Other Considerations: I have not been able to track down a physical copy of the 2017 series, however looking at comics.org (which publishes all the indicia info for print editions) indicates that the 2017 indicia was devoid of a volume number, but I can't say if this is accurate enough. If it is accurate, then the volume numbering here is entirely subjective since this graphic novel doesn't list a volume number, the 2003 series does, and the 2017 series doesn't either. I think in this case, to avoid confusion we should go with the ISBN listing for this graphic novel since that is what this title is generally listed as anyway. Nausiated (talk) 20:13, March 22, 2019 (UTC) :::I'm in favor of keeping things simple with the move being to "Kingpin Vol 1 1." As much as we'd like them to be, comic book indicia aren't standardized, and are often wrong. To provide a concrete example, here's just two of at least three distinct indicia that all claim to be "Deadpool, Vol. 1, No. 1." (As a side note, the the indicia for the 2017 series does indeed neglect to mention a volume, but as previously mentioned, that doesn't mean it's subjective since they're oft inaccurate anyway.) -- Annabell (talk) 20:58, March 22, 2019 (UTC) :::: Well, as you have pointed out that the indica can be incorrect, then it does not make sense to only accept it as the only source to determine a page name. In cases where there are discrepancies, we should be looking at multiple sources instead of just one. As for the Deadpool examples, your assessment is wrong. Marvel retroactively refers to the original Deadpool series (The Circle Chase) as Deadpool: The Circle Chase, as indicated in both the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe (see entries for any of the characters introduced in that series, particularly the Slayback entry in and the Official Marvel Indexs (particularly the X-Men book). More recently, Marvel identifies the first Deadpool series as "The Circle Chase" when they were explaining the Legacy Numbering. Based on multiple official resources, Circle Chase is considered a sub-titled mini-series. They consider "Sins of the Past" (the second mini-series) as Deadpool Vol 1. So your assessment is off by one. If Marvel is retroactively renaming the titles (likely in order to sort out the confusion created by the errors in the indicia) then we should follow suit. That said, since there is no official stance on this from Marvel and we cannot trust the accuracy of the indicia, the page name should match another official source (the ISBN) or at the very least the title on the cover. People who are going to search for this comic are going to search by the cover title anyway. Instead of being rigid on a system that you've pointed out as flawed, we should be leaning more toward what the average user is going to be searching for. Nausiated (talk) 21:54, March 22, 2019 (UTC) ::::: As an aside, the fact that we aren't giving the International Standard Book Number system any sort of consideration here is beyond absurd. You know that right? Nausiated (talk) 21:58, March 22, 2019 (UTC) The incidia aren't "an assessment," they're facts, and your example of Deadpool's legacy numbering only furthers the case that Marvel considers the 1993 series to be Vol 1 when compared to the other legacy numbering systems as opposed to being viewed in a vacuum. Anyway, under the circumstances where a title may be changed later, it becomes a situation similar to Barnes & Noble Make Mine Marvel Sampler Vol 1 1, which Marvel.com called Mosaic Prelude Vol 1 1, so it was given a redirect to avoid confusion when people might search for the digital name and the print indicia clearly calls it another. Also, I'm not being rigid, we're having a discussion where I'm stating an opinion, just like you are. -- Annabell (talk) 22:23, March 22, 2019 (UTC) :::::: No, the link I provided proves my point that Marvel refers to it as "Deadpool: The Circle Chase" as opposed to "Deadpool Vol 1". Yes, they consider it the "first volume" of Deadpool, hence its inclusion in the Legacy Numbering, but they are still making a distinction (Otherwise, why bother did they refer to it by that name and refer to the next series as "Deadpool (1994)" instead of "Deadpool: Sins of the Past (1994)". But I digress, and getting back to the point: I found a reference to this graphic novel in the Official Index of the Marvel Universe: Amazing Spider-Man. It refers to this book as "Spider-Man/Kingpin: To the Death", instead of "Kingpin". So again, if Marvel is calling it something outside of what is on the indicia, then we should follow suit. Nausiated (talk) 04:18, March 26, 2019 (UTC)